Case Digest for Article 107: Spouses Estares v. CA, et. al.
SPOUSES ELISEO F.
ESTARES and ROSENDA P. ESTARES, petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS,
HON. DAMASO HERRERA as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 24, Biñan,
Laguna PROMINENT LENDING & CREDIT CORPORATION, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF
OF LAGUNA and Sheriff IV ARNEL G. MAGAT, respondents.
G.R. No. 144755, 8
June 2005
Facts:
The spouses Estares
secured a loan of P800k from Prominent Lending & Credit
Corporation (PLCC) in 1998. To secure the loan, they mortgaged a
parcel of land. They however only received P637k as testified by
Rosenda Estares in court. She did not however question the
discrepancy. At that time, her husband was in Algeria working. The
loan eventually went due and the spouses were unable to pay. So PLCC
petitioned for an extrajudicial foreclosure. The property was
eventually foreclosed.
Now, the spouses are
questioning the validity of the loan as they alleged that they agreed
to an 18% per annum interest rate but PLCC is now charging them 3.5%
interest rate per month; they also questioned the terms of the loan.
PLCC argued that the
spouses were properly apprised of the terms of the loan. On the
procedural aspect, PLCC claims that the petition filed by the spouses
is invalid because the certification of non-forum shopping was only
signed by Rosenda and her husband did not sign.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the
petition filed by the spouses is valid.
HELD:
Yes, but their
petition shall not prosper due to substantial grounds. The spouses
were properly apprised by the terms of the loan; they did not
question the terms of the loan when they had the opportunity when it
did not yet mature. Rosenda even acknowledged the terms of the loan
in court.
On the procedural
aspect, even though Eliseo did not sign the certification (because he
was in Algeria), there is still substantial compliance with the
rules. After all they share a common interest in the property
involved since it is conjugal property, and the petition questioning
the propriety of the decision of the Court of Appeals originated from
an action brought by the spouses, and is clearly intended for the
benefit of the conjugal partnership. Considering that the husband was
at that time an overseas contract worker working in Algeria, whereas
the petition was prepared in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, a rigid application
of the rules on forumshopping that would disauthorize the wife’s
signing the certification in her behalf and that of her husband is
too harsh and clearly uncalled for.
Comments
Post a Comment